One of the most ubiquitous data networks to date has been the Internet which is a packet data network employing the Internet Protocol (IP) as its network layer protocol. IP provides many advantages as a network layer protocol, including robustness and simplicity of implementation and one of its original principles is that the network layer need not know anything about the contents of the packets it transmits. In other words, to IP, a packet was a packet was a packet. Similarly, IP is intended to work independently of the physical layer of the network. In other words, IP is ignorant of whether the network it is operating over is an optical network or a wireline network, etc.
More recently, much effort has been spent in creating converged networks wherein diverse types of data can be handled by a single network. For example, packet data networks are now often able to carry voice (telephony) data, “pure” data (such as data file transfers, emails, etc.), fax data, streaming video, video conferencing, etc. Many of these converged networks also employ IP as their network protocol.
While IP continues to be the network layer protocol of choice for many modem networks, data from different user applications in a converged network can require different transmission characteristics to be provided for them. For example, data packets from and/or to telephony voice coders require relatively low end-to-end transmission latencies, but can accommodate relatively high error rates and/or dropped packets. In contrast, data packets from a file transfer protocol (FTP) session can accommodate relatively long latencies, but cannot well accommodate errors or dropped packets. Data packets carrying fax data using the T.38 protocol require both low latency and low error rates. The specific requirements for the acceptable transmission of the contents of a data packet are generally referred to as the required quality of service (QoS) for the data. As originally designed, IP did not contemplate providing different QoS levels for packets.
To provide some measure of QoS control in IP, the fourth version of the protocol, typically referred to as IPv4, provided a Type of Service (TOS) byte in the standard IP header, as defined in IETF RFC 791 (1981) (available from www.ietf.org). The first three bits (0 to 2) of the TOS byte represent a precedence field with eight defined values (specifically, “Network Control”, “Internetwork Control”, “CRITIC/ECP”, “Flash Override”, “Flash”, “Immediate”, “Priority” and “Routine”). Apart from Router Table updates and similar networking functions, the precedence bits are not widely used in most networks today.
The next four bits (bits 3 to 6—typically referred to as the TOS bits) of the TOS byte represent flags indicating a desired type of service and the last bit (bit 7) is left blank. The TOS bits essentially act as flags to request from the network service levels to: minimize delay; maximize throughput; maximize reliability; or minimize monetary cost. An application can set any one of the four TOS bits as desired or, if none are set, it is assumed that normal service is desired. Suggested settings of the TOS bits for common applications were described in IETF RFC 1600 (Reynolds and Postel, 1992) and IETF RFC 1609 (Almquist, 1992). As specific examples, it is recommended in these documents that FTP control packets have the minimize delay bit set, that FTP data packets have the maximize throughput bit set and that usenet (NNTP) packets have the minimize monetary cost bit set.
While TOS provides some ability to provide QoS, it is very limited. Accordingly, many other attempts have been made to provide QoS mechanisms for IP. For example, RSVP has been proposed as a mechanism for providing QoS assurance in an IP network. Essentially, RSVP reserves resources from network components to provide virtual connections through the otherwise connectionless IP network. RSVP suffers from difficulties in that it is not yet broadly supported and that, even when supported, it assumes that sufficiently large amounts of network resources (bandwidth, etc.) are available to permit some of these resources to be reserved for specific users and/or applications and it can result in inefficient use of these resources.
Additional problems exist when trying to provide QoS over an IP network that is implemented on a physical layer with higher error probabilities. Specifically, IP was designed for, and assumes, a reliable physical layer, such as wired Ethernet or the like where congestion may be a problem, but where large amounts of generally reliable bandwidth are available. To date, implementing QoS-enabled IP based networks over less reliable physical layers, such as radio channels, has been difficult.
Further, to date most attempts at implementing QoS for IP networks have taken an end to end approach and have not addressed networks with heterogeneous physical layers, such as networks with both wired and radio links. Different physical layers can result in much different QoS mechanisms being required.
Also, in radio systems, such as that proposed by the third generation partnership project (3GPP), QoS must typically be provided at the physical layer of the system, requiring different channels to provide different QoS levels. Obviously, this can severely limit the range of QoS offerings that can be provided in a network.
It is desired to have a broadly QoS-enabled IP network which can operate on a variety of physical layers, including relatively unreliable layers such as radio channels, and/or in networks with heterogeneous physical links.